Originally Posted by Amadeus

I think you'll find that the world is full of **** we don't need.

Like semiautomatic guns in black?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

But brown guns are ok? Racist.

Last time this **** went around it was from conservative, christian republicans. Congrats dem/libs for going full circle. I pretty much hated them as much as I now hate you.

i blame hookers and blow

I blame the high cost of hookers and blow

This seems to be a good time to discuss something I've pondered which will probably be controversial. As I've aged into my 30s after spending most of my young-adulthood playing FPS games, sporting the attitude that "of course video games don't cause violence or mass shootings," I find myself challenging my position and asking the question of whether they may help people train for a murderous spree. Additionally, twisted individuals may become significantly more aware of the types of weapons and combat gear they can use to be more 'effective' when they finally snap.

Just typing that out made me feel lame as ****, but I'm coming from the perspective of someone who played (almost) exclusively Tribes games for probably 8 years, and then transitioned to playing an absurd amount of Battlefield 2 for two or three years. Coming from Tribes, it took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that you can't just run around the map and exert your will on your opponent in BF2. You need to take note of your surroundings, you need to advance across the map together, you have to take cover, you need to know choke points, you need to manage your ammo, etc etc. In Tribes, you could win the entire map by yourself on an average pub. Capture the flag, kill the opposing team capper, kill every single person who comes at you as if they are ants, **** the base. No problem for a really good player. That just isn't possible in a game that is attempting to simulate combat (unless you're a pilot, oh how I miss piloting...)

I think you get what I'm saying. Certain types of games are more realistic than others, and it's reasonable to wonder how the brain is affected when it spends years learning combat tactics with 'real' weapons from a young age. Not every kid is playing this type of game, but it's not hard to imagine how a very small fraction of the ones who are playing this type of game might put their "training" to use when they go into a fit of pubescent rage. It's remarkably easy to find a gun in this country, and even if you can't buy one legally, there are a lot of young kids who know how to get their hands on one if they really want to.

I played Tribes like it was my religion for no less than 8 years, but I would have really never known how to assault a building if you gave me a gun and some moving targets. After I played BF2, that definitely changed. I knew much more about the weapons I was using, their strengths/weaknesses, and what's best in certain scenarios. Before long, any player worth their salt has memorized every single acronym and number as if they were part of the alphabet. It's unavoidable when the model name for each weapon flashes at the top of the screen every single time someone on the server gets killed. You're not working with some imaginary disc launcher or plasma rifle. It's a gun you can go down to the store and buy in many cases, and you're shooting 'people' with it.

I don't feel strongly about this position, just wondering if people see what I'm getting at here. This probably isn't true for 99.9% of kids who game, except when 0.1% represents thousands of kids, therein lies the problem

Oh Jesus Christ. There are not enough face-palms.

I remember some kid saying he had to convince his mom that he was shooting robots in Tribes so she would let him play it.

Originally Posted by aScotiA

I think you get what I'm saying. Certain types of games are more realistic than others,

Yep, that would be CS:GO. I know all the guns. When I see one on TV I go, "Oh, that's an SSG, or that's an AK-47." But I don't own any guns or have any thoughts in real life.

Cruz played out his fantasy, shot up the school, ate at McDonalds, then the programming ended. He was walking aimlessly through a neighborhood on the sidewalk and was spotted by the cops. He was supposed to kill himself but didn't because he dropped his guns, bag (in the hallway), and ran blending in with the kids.

I'm more blown away by the end game and how these people don't think of it, unless they kill themselves like the Las Vegas shooter.

Originally Posted by samUwell

Like semiautomatic guns in black?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

thank god for cerakote

Originally Posted by aScotiA

This seems to be a good time to discuss something I've pondered which will probably be controversial. As I've aged into my 30s after spending most of my young-adulthood playing FPS games, sporting the attitude that "of course video games don't cause violence or mass shootings," I find myself challenging my position and asking the question of whether they may help people train for a murderous spree. Additionally, twisted individuals may become significantly more aware of the types of weapons and combat gear they can use to be more 'effective' when they finally snap.

Just typing that out made me feel lame as ****, but I'm coming from the perspective of someone who played (almost) exclusively Tribes games for probably 8 years, and then transitioned to playing an absurd amount of Battlefield 2 for two or three years. Coming from Tribes, it took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that you can't just run around the map and exert your will on your opponent in BF2. You need to take note of your surroundings, you need to advance across the map together, you have to take cover, you need to know choke points, you need to manage your ammo, etc etc. In Tribes, you could win the entire map by yourself on an average pub. Capture the flag, kill the opposing team capper, kill every single person who comes at you as if they are ants, **** the base. No problem for a really good player. That just isn't possible in a game that is attempting to simulate combat (unless you're a pilot, oh how I miss piloting...)

I think you get what I'm saying. Certain types of games are more realistic than others, and it's reasonable to wonder how the brain is affected when it spends years learning combat tactics with 'real' weapons from a young age. Not every kid is playing this type of game, but it's not hard to imagine how a very small fraction of the ones who are playing this type of game might put their "training" to use when they go into a fit of pubescent rage. It's remarkably easy to find a gun in this country, and even if you can't buy one legally, there are a lot of young kids who know how to get their hands on one if they really want to.

I played Tribes like it was my religion for no less than 8 years, but I would have really never known how to assault a building if you gave me a gun and some moving targets. After I played BF2, that definitely changed. I knew much more about the weapons I was using, their strengths/weaknesses, and what's best in certain scenarios. Before long, any player worth their salt has memorized every single acronym and number as if they were part of the alphabet. It's unavoidable when the model name for each weapon flashes at the top of the screen every single time someone on the server gets killed. You're not working with some imaginary disc launcher or plasma rifle. It's a gun you can go down to the store and buy in many cases, and you're shooting 'people' with it.

I don't feel strongly about this position, just wondering if people see what I'm getting at here. This probably isn't true for 99.9% of kids who game, except when 0.1% represents thousands of kids, therein lies the problem

The short answer is no. There have been studies, google it.

But even if we were to assume that video games help someone become better with real guns to some degree, which one do you think would help more?

- Sitting on your couch pressing buttons on a plastic controller
- Going to an actual gun range and firing actual bullets from actual guns

Because I would imagine that practicing with real guns wins by a landslide, so wtf would be the point of changing video games when the more effective option still exists?

Doom 2 makes people eat babies and murder the mother.

I would never kill somebody

unless they pissed me off

i still haven't heard a good reason for why anyone "needs" violent or possibly offensive video games........

still waiting

sometimes i get an almost uncontrollable urge to hop up on the sidewalk with my truck and mow a bunch of thug minorities down.

i blame gta5.

Originally Posted by Captain Tele

i still haven't heard a good reason for why anyone "needs" violent or possibly offensive video games........

still waiting

Same reason we "need" beer, football, Justin Bieber, pony cartoons and internet forums.

In Soviet Russia, video games blame people for shootguns.

sent from *magic device* using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Same reason we "need" beer, football, Justin Bieber, pony cartoons and internet forums.

so no good reasons?

good then let us ban them

just because you want something, that could be dangerous to others, doesn't mean that you should be allowed to have it at the detriment to the rest of us

trump gonna ban fps games

Originally Posted by Captain Tele

so no good reasons?

good then let us ban them

just because you want something, that could be dangerous to others, doesn't mean that you should be allowed to have it at the detriment to the rest of us

There's no evidence to suggest that video games could be dangerous to others.

Based on that argument, alcohol is a better candidate for banning than video games. Do you support the banning of alcohol?